Notes on US Sanctions Against SLORC

N O T E S O N U.S. S A N C T I O N S
A G A I N S T B U R M A 'S R E G I M E
-------------------------------------------
Edith T. Mirante, Project Maje
September 1995
-------------------------------------------
The idea that "unilateral sanctions by the United States won't work"
is wrong:
** The US has consistently been among Burma's SLORC regime's top
five foreign investors during the last few years. Removal of
that huge income source would mortally wound the SL0RC, which
depends on infusions of overseas hard currency to stay armed and
in power.
** One particular project, the Tenasserim gas pipeline, is the
SLORC's largest current and potential income-generating scheme;
the US oil company Unocal, is a major partner in the pipeline.
Other US oil/gas companies -- Texaco and Arco -- are also huge
investors, having paid millions of dollars to the SLORC.
Sanctions would end their relationship with the regime. If the
US companies withdrew, it would probably not be worthwhile for
other oil companies (such as France's Total, Britain's Premier,
and Japan's Nippon) to continue their Burmese gas investments
without them. The profit margin is low on such gas sales, and
the risk is extremely high, so companies try to spread the risk
around a partnership. US money has been a crucial component of
such partnerships.
** The SLORC has hopes of a lot of "pie in the sky" investment
projects, including new cities and the "year of tourism", but
little has come of them. SLORC remains deeply in dept, with low
currency reserves and high inflation. They are, however,
convinced that they will get a steady income if the gas pipeline
is built -- this helps make them reluctant to cede any power to
Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi's elected government. The thought that the
oil company money could be removed by US sanctions is extremely
frightening to SLORC, sources with Rangoon contacts report.
** As well as its investments, the US is a significant importer of
some Burmese goods such as teakwood (from endangered forests)
and jumbo shrimp (from overfished seacoast). The SLORC makes
money from such sales, and has waged war on ethnic minorities
for access to these natural resources. Removing the US as a
market for these goods would both help stop the ravaging of
Burma's environment, and take income away from the SLORC.
The idea that "sanctions might hurt the common people" in Burma is
wrong:
** Income from US investments has been going directly to the SLORC
(oil/gas companies) for the most part, and otherwise to various
cronies of the military regime (Pepsico bottling plant, and
garment manufacturing). Withdrawal of the US investments would
take money away from Burma's military, and hamper its ability to
buy weapons.
** US investment since 1989 have served to build a richer SLORC,
with an immense and well armed Burma Army. Thc country is open to
business-people and tourists, but slavery and other human rights
abuse occurs on a massive scale, often right out in the open. In
pouring money into the regime's coffers, US companies have been
complicitous in the continued existence of the regime Worse, US
investment in the Tenasserim gas pipeline scheme has led to
large-scale human rights abuse in SLORC's security campaign for
the pipeline region. Sanctions would put a stop to such
collaboration with the regime.
** As foreign investments have increased in Burma, the military
elite and its cronies have gotten richer and richer, while the
average people have gotten poorer and poorer, and victimized by
inflation. A false free-market economy exists -- in reality, the
economy is as controlled by the military as it was when it was
called "socialism". US investments perpetuate this system, and
benefits do not trickle down to the vast majority of people in
Burma. US projects have employed few people in Burma, and those
employees usually must have the approval of the regime. Garment
companies have withdrawn, citing the inevitability of SLORC
involvement in Burma ventures.
** As consumer goods are largely imported to Burma through
neighbors, on an informal basis, the cancellation of US imports
to Burma through sanctions would have little effect on US
companies or on Burmese consumers. The most high-profile US
consumer prodoct in Burma is Pepsi-Cola and its removal would
certainly not cause any hardships for the average Burmese. Most
people in Burma are living in a subsistence agricultural economy,
and are not now using the American imports such as cell-phones;
sanctions would not hurt them. There are rice shortages in Burma,
but the SLORC is exporting rice for prestige purposes; a US ban
on trade in Burmese agricultural products would help keep food
inside Burma, where it is needed, rather than having it traded
for goods Like Pepsi syrup and bottles overseas.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Edith T. Mirante is author of Burmese Looking Glass: A Human Rights
Adventure (Atlantic Month1y press), and director of Project Maje, an
independent information project on Burma's human rights and
environmental issues, which she founded in 1986. She has traveled
extensively in Burma's frontier regions.
------------------------------------------------------------------------